New website - Landgrab
A new site here, which is tracking the increasing out-sourcing of food production.
Science and rational debate
I came across this article via RuSource, an information source of the Arthur Rank centre. It has piqued my interest because of how it progresses, from a reasonable tone through to rather odd conclusions.The article purports to be supporting the idea that scientific method is a ‘valuable way to gain objective knowledge’ (but only a way not the only way). It then progresses to say that science can only hold theories, as even ideas that are widely agreed on - evolution is the example given - then they remain theories as they may be disproved. This is actually a fairly radical theory of knowledge, in that all we know has to be considered as contingent.
Then the article takes an odd turn saying that most scientific controversy is of ‘little relevance to the average citizen’.The popular media demonstrates that scientific theories and discoveries are of profound importance to the ‘average citizen’.It then becomes odder still, taking the example of Helicobactor pylori. Before the identification of this organism as the cause of stomach ulcers it that had been thought that they had been caused by stress. That was until two scientists successfully treated it with a course of anti-biotics, after infecting one of them deliberately. So we are now presented with a new theory of how ulcers are caused. From this curious example we get the idea that: ‘It is human nature to accept facts than continually question them: indeed society would probably not function if we did not behave like this’. What is required is individuals prepared to questions the received wisdom.At this point the piece makes a jump from praising mavericks to the complex issue of the environment, and astute readers might begin to guess what is coming.
Yes, that favourite of the ‘scientific maverick’, questioning the validity of climate change. As ‘it is impossible to do experiments on the Earth’s climate. All we can do observe’, and some of the observations the author/s argue do not all agree with the theory of climate change. Worse still it is not possible to disprove climate change on the basis that ‘no-one can do more than point to observations, no new evidence is going to be produced which - as in the story of peptic ulcers - will provide direct, irrefutable corroboration of an alternative theory’. So readers we should be wary of the doom laden predictions around climate change, as there will always be doubt.
I’m in part tempted to say to the authors, welcome to the world in all its messy complexity, uncertainty and doubt. But to take them seriously we must consider what is being said here, as for people calling for rational debate the argument is not. We open with the observation that all knowledge is contingent on being disproved by new information. Then we are shown how experimentation can overcome previous observation based theories to produce - a new theory. It is then asserted that because it is not possible to conduct experiments then it is not possible to prove (or dis-prove) climate change, because all there is observation. If we tidy this up and think that the authors are arguing that only experimental methods produce reliable knowledge then what we know is in fact very limited. This also contradicts the opening of the argument that all knowledge is contingent. Following this logic then all scientific endeavour not based on experimentation is not valid - goodbye astronomy, much of ecology, genetics, huge tracts of medicine and all of the social sciences.
More worrying than this reductionism is smuggled into this article are a lot of social assumptions. I already noted the idea that the average citizen is not directly affected by grand scientific theories. But then came the idea that there is a ‘human nature’ to be accepting of facts, without suggesting where the evidence for such an idea came from or where those who disagree come from, how do they escape human nature. This is topped by the demand that before action is taken the criticisms of the dissenting minority need to be addressed. That until there is total consensus then no action need be taken.This logic would mean that in the example of vaccines that they would not be widely used, as a small but vocal group have always opposed them. Just look that the debacle around MMR to see the impact of a minorities influence when they stand against the evidence, clinging to a few anomalies.
Science, belief and rational debate
I’m gathering myself to say something about the article below. http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletter.cfm?newsletterID=127&ID=0
“To test a hypothesis, it is always best if only one independent variable can be changed at a time. In the laboratory,this is usually possible, but when hypotheses have to be tested purely by observation of highly complexsystems, life gets much more difficult. And it is difficult to think of something much more complex than global climate.”
It isn’t difficult to think of such a thing more complex or at least as complex as global climate, human society would be a good starting point and indirectly it is what this article is about.It then starts talking about the lack or contested evidence around human induced or cause climate change:
“All societies will gain if we make sure we understand the problem before taking corrective action rather thanjump on the currently fashionable bandwagon. Addressing critics’ questions seriously is a necessary firststep.”
The answer to this is obvious but 1 - the consensus of scientists is that it is real and dangerous, therefore total understanding is not going to happen, 2 - no some is stopping the critics but they also have to accept that debates cannot hinge on a scientific minority - consider the MMR debacle and see where that got us.<a href=”http://technorati.com/claim/ga5tjxyp6u” rel=”me”>Technorati Profile</a>
TLIO nostalgia
http://www.ameliasmagazine.com/amelias_blog/2009/06/this_saturday_the_land_is_1.php
An act of pure genius or just a repeat?
No organic holiday
No organic holiday according to the Farmers’ weekly
organic woes
Just caught up with this, which is a pretty aggressive but comprehensive listing of the woes hitting the organic sector at the moment.
Venice and social networking sites
This article in the Guardian is interesting, but if you check out the blog the article is already on it, a sort of circularity of referencing that the internet seems to encourage.
Falling sales of Organic
This piece in The Grocer talks of the slight drop in the sales of organics, mostly amongst those who purchase organic products casually. Apparently the core consumers are remaining loyal to organics despite the recession. Funny, I said that in the summer.
Comment on the organic holiday
The NFU has something cogent to say.
Tags
action day Animals animal welfare blog book brands clones DU301 environmentalism ethics farming fascism film Food food myths forecasts futures GM GM animals GM Watch grab jamie oliver land movie News Organic OU peak food povery Research sales slow food supermarkets utopian welfare writingArchives
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005